Pattern behavior

[fred38K3E]

I'm trying to create a parametric Wago connector holder, where the number of connectors is a variable inside the Parameters table.  I started with n=5.  When I went to 4, 3, 2, and 1, everything worked as expected (quantity of connectors decreased and everything else was correct).  However when I went to n=6, it didn't work as I wanted it to:Won't extrude correctly if value increases beyond initial value (in this case 5).I think this is probably as good as I'll be able to get, so my solution will be to sketch it with n=<highest quantity ever expected> and I should be good to go.  If there's a more elegant solution I'd be happy to learn it.

But I also noticed something unexpected.  If I change n to 2, 3, or 4 and then change back to 5, the 5 renders correctly.  But if I go down to 1 and back to 5 (or any other number), slots 2, 3, 4, and 5 look like like slot 6 in the above example.  Only slot 1 stays correct.  So I can go 5->2->5 with not problem, but 5->1->5 doesn't work as expected.

I'm guessing something gets simplified or forgotten when n=1.  Again, this is not the end of the world, just undo or go back to a previous version, but is there a way to prevent this from happening when n=1?  n=1 is pretty common, and I'd like the design to be as easy to use as possible.

Maybe I'll try copying post-extrusion instead of in the sketch...

I've attached my 90kB .f3d file if anyone's interested.

[jhackney1972 · Accepted solution]

You are working in sketches for your parametric design.  You need to move up to solids to use a Rectangular Pattern.  Fusion cannot sense the varying number of profiles in a parametric sketch to succeed.  I created a new model beside yours to demonstrate.  You only need to vary the parameter "NumConnectors" to see the pattern work.  I did this very crudely just to illustrate my point using your parameters and dimensions, please check them as I may have made a mistake in calculation.  Model attached.  By the way, you need to work on keeping your model sketches fully constrained.

If this answers your question, please select the "Accept Solution" on my post. If you need further help, please ask.

[fred38K3E]

Hi John,

Appreciate the response!  That's exactly what I ended up doing, and it cleared up every issue I was having.  I re-did it from scratch and am pretty happy with

I'll go back and look at the file I sent and see what I missed constraint-wise.  Appreciate the feedback.

Cheers,

Fred

[jhackney1972]

Your method will get you where you need to be EXCEPT you end up with a component with any number of Bodies, the minimum is three.  If you look back at my supplied model, you will see that I only have one body which will serve you a lot better.  I cannot see any way to solve this issue with your current method of patterning.

[fred38K3E]

OK, think I understand what you did and it is much cleaner (I really didn't like having multiple bodies at the end).   Time for rev 3 (knew I shouldn't have put "final" in the filename - when will I learn?).

Thanks again for the help.

[fred38K3E]

For completion's sake, here is my current final design.  I'm pretty happy with it - the only janky thing I did was mirror the entire body to copy the fillet on the static side to the opposite (parametric) end.  I couldn't figure out a more elegant way to get fillet that fillet there.

Learned a lot making this.  (Making this 4 or 5 different times.)

[jhackney1972]

Very Nice!  Nothing wrong with the Mirror of the Fillet.  I see you have grasp the concept of creating a pattern of features so the Body are not duplicated but merged.  One more thing, very small but may help you in the long run, you can eliminate the indicated extrusion (long arrow) and add it to the earlier extrusion (short arrow).  The principal is the same you are using in your pattern, when two features overlap or are coincident, they will merge.  Of course there is nothing wrong with your model, I just strive to make my timeline as condensed as possible. I attached my model to show the change and as you can see, it makes not difference, just takes out a feature from the timeline.

You truly have learned a lot on this model.  Great Job!

[fred38K3E]

Good idea!  Yes, realizing I can pattern a Feature, not just a Body, was huge.  Thanks for all the help, it's much appreciated!

[cad25JXCJ]

This is a common problem that I encountered when trying to create highly resilient parametric patterns. 

I find that in most cases, patterning "Faces" is the most stable way to keep these patterns parametric if you are relying on being able add conditional logic to patterns. However, this requires you to sort out the QTY and distance/spacing mathematically in parameters beforehand. 

I think this could be streamlined with...Feature Request: I wish there was a option within "Combine" that had a "listener" for n number of instances in a target component.